June 02, 2015

In San Francisco, where I live, coffee plays a major role in lifestyles and work styles. People stand in long lines at artisanal coffee businesses for coffee that’s sourced, roasted and prepared with care. It has become de rigueur for leading technology and social media companies to make artisanal coffee available to team members. Google stocks beans from the better San Francisco purveyors in snack areas throughout its “Googleplex” in Mountain View, California. Team members can grind the beans, brew a cup, or pull a shot of espresso on demand.

As the artisanal movement in coffee, often called “Third Wave Coffee,” sweeps the U.S. and infiltrates workplaces, people are becoming particular about what’s in their mug. Commercial brew just won’t do. Yet coffee consumption remains primarily a solitary activity. People fiddle with their smart phones or work on notebook computers as they sip that Yirgacheffe or Antigua drip-by-the-cup in cafes and in workplaces.

In contrast, workplace coffee consumption in Sweden is primarily a social activity. Swedes embrace the ritual consumption of coffee rather than the coffee itself. So Swedes care less about sourcing, roasting and preparation and more about gathering around a table with colleagues to consume the beverage.

I recently returned from Gothenburg, Sweden where I gave a keynote speech on collaboration to a group of government leaders, healthcare professionals and pharmaceutical executives. While in Sweden, I engaged in Fika which is an institution in the Swedish workplace. Fika is scheduled twice a day, typically at 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. Work groups sit around tables in break areas. They drink coffee, eat cake sometimes baked by a team member, and they discuss issues pertinent to their work. Fika helps achieve the consensus that is integral to Swedish business culture (consensus is not integral to collaboration, but that’s a different post). Fika’s limitation is that people share coffee and cake with the same team members every day.

Both U.S. and Swedish workplaces can enhance collaboration by changing how they consume coffee—but the challenges are different for each culture. In the U.S., the challenge is to put down the devices and engage others while enjoying that artisanal cup of joe.

In Sweden, the challenge is to include people from other levels, roles and regions so that fika is less insular. Collaborative tools such as telepresence could bridge the distance gap and offer the opportunity for a video fika. Because fika is so engrained in the Swedish business culture, it is a critical channel Swedes can use to enhance organizational collaboration.

October 08, 2014

“I hate the word culture,” Barra is quoted as saying in an article by Joseph B. White in the September 30 edition of the Wall Street Journal. “Culture is really just how we all behave,” according to Barra. The comments are curious in that Barra testified before a Congressional subcommittee last June that she would

GM CEO Mary Barra outlines new strategic plan (Image copyright GM)

not rest until GM’s “deep underlying cultural problems” are resolved. The subcommittee was investigating GM’s failure to recall thousands of cars with defective ignition switches for eleven years.

It’s myopic to dismiss the word culture. Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s third definition of culture is “a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization.” GM would benefit from focusing on these issues plus the broader context of the word culture. In his Tusculan Disputations, the ancient Roman orator Cicero introduced the concept of culture as cultivation of the soul as a farmer cultivates crops. Culture has come to represent beliefs and customs of societies. Cultural anthropologists study social structure and customs in populations ranging from villages to corporations.

Culture is inextricably intertwined with collaboration in that how “we all behave” in Barra’s words determines whether we’re working together towards common goals or working at cross purposes. Ironically, in a July 28, 2014 post, The Culture of Collaboration® blog took General Motors to task for overemphasizing culture change without structural change. Culture change typically delivered as an edict often highlights the desired result without providing a way to get there. This common prescription from leaders, pundits and management gurus often fails, because the shift originates with executives without detail, discussion or broad buy-in. Meantime, the outmoded organizational structure stays the same. To achieve collaborative culture and the payoff that collaboration provides, it’s necessary to change the organizational structure. Then culture change can happen.

On October 1, GM outlined its new strategic plan that focuses on technology and product advances, growth in China, establishing Cadillac as a separate business unit “headquartered” in New York City and delivering “core operating efficiencies.” Incidentally, the notion of headquarters is a relic of Industrial Age command and control. Nowhere does the plan mention structural change, which the automaker sorely needs. Changing GM’s structure requires overhauling everything from how team members share information across levels, roles and regions to how the company recognizes and rewards people as I detail in my book, The Bounty Effect: 7 Steps to The Culture of Collaboration®.

July 28, 2014

General Motors chief executive Mary Barra has vowed to change the company’s culture and has testified before Congress that GM has taken steps to increase internal transparency and information sharing. This commitment follows a report exposing that GM discouraged raising or sharing safety concerns. The company commissioned the report, because GM failed to recall thousands of cars with defective ignition switches for eleven years.

Similar calls for culture change have followed the Veterans Health Administration’s wait-for-care and numbers fudging scandal. President Obama has remarked that the VA needs a culture change so that “bad news gets surfaced quickly.” Not content to wait for culture change, House and Senate negotiators today announced a $17 billion plan that, among other provisions, provides money to lease clinics so that veterans can get treatment outside the VA’s system.

Culture change emphasizes the result without a way to get there. It’s like telling a poor person to become rich. Culture change has become a common prescription from leaders, pundits and management gurus. The prescription often fails, because the shift originates with executives without detail, discussion or broad buy-in. Meantime, the organizational structure stays the same.

The Bounty Effect has hit GM and the VA. As I describe in my new book, The Bounty Effect happens when exigent circumstances compel businesses, government and organizations to change their structures from command-and-control to collaborative. The solution for these organizations is to seize the opportunity The Bounty Effect provides and fundamentally change their structures so that people can spontaneously engage one another, share information and participate in decisions regardless of level, role or region. This will cost far less than $17 billion.

Many organizations, including GM and the VA, still operate with a structure that has barely changed since the Industrial Age. This obsolete structure based on command-and-control promotes hierarchy and internal competition plus rewards information hoarding, secrecy, and cutting corners. GM and the VA also share a need to go through channels. This inhibits the participation and information flow critical to Information Age organizations.

Safety concerns apparently never reached GM’s chief executive, nor did problems with scheduling reporting systems apparently flow to former VA Secretary Eric Shinseki. And both organizations apparently discouraged people from sharing concerns. VA supervisors often retaliated against workers who raised valid complaints, according to a White House report.

GM chief executive Mary Barra has said that culture change must be leader-led. Barra has also promoted a program called “speak up for safety” plus three GM “core values.” These are “the customer is our compass, relationships matter, and individual excellence is crucial.” But a leader’s words have modest impact without structural change. Yes, GM has added safety investigators, increased safety data mining, and created a vice president of safety position. Nevertheless, none of these actions will reduce information hoarding and internal competition. None of these actions will change GM’s structure from command-and-control to collaborative.

When an organization rewards obsolete behavior, change dies on the vine despite a leader’s mandate. If hoarding and hiding information or failing to act on knowledge results in a raise or a promotion, people are unlikely to share information or take action. Pushing safety issues at GM was seemingly no path to promotion. VA managers reportedly kept patient names off the official waiting list, because bonuses depended on concealing information. Recognition and reward systems in obsolete organizational structures often reinforce bad behavior and the status quo regardless of culture change efforts. The same flawed practices and processes that encourage internal competition and information hoarding lead companies to compromise safety and fudge numbers.

Changing the VA’s structure will enhance transparency and efficiency while saving money rather than costing the $17 billion Congress is authorizing. Changing GM’s structure will ensure that people across the organization share and act on critical information. And changing the structure of GM and the VA will accomplish what many leaders and pundits are recommending: culture change.

April 30, 2014

Which organization? Well, here are some of its characteristics. This global enterprise pays a few people to make decisions while everybody else follows orders. The CEO’s direct reports act like a royal court and compete for face time. Senior leaders often live lavishly and consume conspicuously. Headquarters micromanages satellite offices. Bureaucracy and formality reduce efficiency. Internal competition runs rampant. The command-and-control organizational structure quashes dissent.

Sound familiar? This description fits many global corporations and government entities. This particular multinational spent $170 billion in the United States in 2010, according to The Economist. The organization is the Catholic Church and, more specifically, the Roman Curia, the church’s centralized administrative operation.

Like many corporations, the Catholic Church suffers from an obsolete organizational structure that is compromising value. And like many corporations, reform-minded leaders have tried introducing a new approach. But entrenched interests and a centralized bureaucracy rife with intrigue, fiefdoms, and Machiavellian motivations has frequently derailed change.

Enter Pope Francis setting the stage for change by wearing a simple white robe and black shoes rather than the regal vestments and ruby shoes of his predecessor. He has washed the feet of inmates and has opted to live in a guest quarters rather than the Vatican’s deluxe papal apartments in the Apostolic Palace. There are signs the Pope’s frugal tone is rippling across the Church. In March, the Pope accepted the resignation of Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst of Limburg, Germany who spent the equivalent of $43 million on a new house and office complex. In April, the Atlanta Archdiocese announced that it would sell Archbishop Wilton Gregory’s $2.2 million mansion.

Beyond Pope Francis’ rejection of the trappings of office, he is taking steps to adopt a more collaborative structure in the Roman Curia and in the global Catholic Church. The Pope has chosen a “working group” of eight cardinals from outside the Curia to collaborate with him on changing the structure.

Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio heads the Vatican department that writes the church laws that will codify reforms. The Religion News Service quotes Cardinal Coccopalmerio as saying “The big change is the emphasis on collegiality, on collaboration.” Now Pope Francis, Cardinal Cocopalmerio and other new church leaders are focused on breaking down barriers among silos so that information flows around the organization rather than from top to bottom. Cardinal Cocopalmerio has proposed naming a “moderator of the Curia” to identify inefficiencies and cut through red tape.

Pope Francis participates in meetings without dominating them and embraces broad input. Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C. recently attended one such meeting at the Vatican about appointing new bishops. Typically, popes never attend such meetings. Pope Francis reportedly stayed for three hours. “We’re all sitting around the table, and he comes in and pulls up a chair,” Cardinal Wuerl told Fox News. At another similar meeting, a senior cardinal asked the Pope what he thought about the topic. “If I told you what I think, you would all agree,” Pope Francis responded according to Cardinal Wuerl. “I want to hear from you what you think.”

Perhaps most significantly, according to Cardinal Wuerl, the Pope has repeatedly advocated a collaborative process through which “the Holy Spirit can be heard.” And the Holy Spirit isn’t going to be heard if just one person speaks. “He wants all of us to be speaking with him so at the end of the day he can say this truly was the fruit of the work of the Spirit.”

Hallelujah. Many corporations in multiple industries including United States government agencies can learn from the Pope’s example. It takes more than window dressing and a desire for change to create value through collaboration. The only viable approach is changing the organizational structure which, in turn, shifts the culture. My research on collaboration indicates that changing the structure requires seven steps—plan, people, principles, practices, processes, planet and payoff. Pope Francis has demonstrated that making progress through these steps requires that a leader set the stage for change so that others feel comfortable participating.

In essence, The Bounty Effect has hit the Catholic Church. The Bounty Effect happens when exigent circumstances compel companies, governments and organizations to change their structures from command-and-control to collaborative. For the Catholic Church, exigent circumstances range from sexual abuse scandals to corruption and cronyism at the Vatican. And it’s The Bounty Effect that led to the election of Pope Francis and the structural change now underway.

March 09, 2014

For the answer, we need look no further than some of the most high-profile corporate scandals. Lehman Brothers, Worldcom and Enron— companies that experienced some of the largest bankruptcies in history— used accounting gimmicks which stemmed from bankrupt cultures. Command-and-control, internally-competitive, autocratic, star-oriented organizational cultures breed unethical and—in extreme cases—illegal behavior.

Now Big Law gives us a new don’t-let-this-happen-to-you poster child for embracing the right culture. Leaders of the once top-tier law firm of Dewey & LeBoeuf overstated revenue and used accounting tricks to hide losses and cash flow shortfalls, according to a 106-count indictment that a New York state grand jury handed up last Thursday. If convicted of the most serious charges, Chairman Steven Davis, Executive Director Stephen DiCarmine and Chief Financial Officer Joel Sanders, each face up to 25 years in prison. Dewey filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in May of 2012. The alleged financial shenanigans began as billings dipped and clients evaporated during the depths of the 2008 financial crisis.

But Dewey’s problems began long before the firm’s leaders allegedly began their deceit, as I describe in my new book, The Bounty Effect: 7 Steps to The Culture of Collaboration®. Formed in 2007 from a merger of two venerable firms, Dewey Ballantine and LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, the firm reportedly employed three thousand people globally at its height. Dewey’s roots date back a century, but it took roughly five years for the firm to come unglued.

Among other cultural defects, the newly-merged firm created a two-tier partnership system in which it treated “stars” differently than other “partners.” After the merger, Dewey began recruiting so-called “lateral partners” rather than promoting from within. These partners received multiyear, multimillion-dollar guarantees. Dewey’s secretive culture prevented the firm from sharing this information with all of the partners. While one lateral partner reportedly had a six-million-dollar-a-year guarantee, other partners received four hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year.

The stars were those who the firm expected would bring in the most business. Dewey considered other partners “service partners,” the ones who wrote briefs and performed or managed the legal heavy lifting. When word of the wide compensation gap spread, the service partners—many of whom had worked for the firm much longer than the newly-recruited “stars”—became resentful. Clearly, star culture had compromised trust and poisoned the organization. And, guess what? Some highly-touted “stars” were unable to live up to their hype, and therefore revenue fell short of what Dewey needed for paying annual compensation commitments to these “stars.”

The merger occurred right before the financial crisis. By the end of 2008, Dewey had more than $100 million in term debt outstanding and available lines of credits totaling more than $130 million with four banks. The firm’s credit agreements required Dewey to maintain a minimum cash flow. To abide by this covenant, the firm’s leaders and others conspired to misrepresent Dewey’s financial performance, according to the indictment.

So brazen were the defendants, according to the indictment, that they created a document called the “Master Plan” which outlined fraudulent accounting tricks. Plus they reportedly discussed the alleged fraud in a series of emails. One of these apparently read, “Can you find another clueless auditor for next year?”

Suppose Dewey had fostered a collaborative rather than command-and-control culture and organizational structure? What if Dewey had shared rather than hoarded information, harnessed broad input into decisions, and encouraged partners to work together both in developing business and producing legal work? The firm may have weathered the financial crisis rather than devolving into apparent unethical and possibly illegal activity.

Dewey is by no means the only law firm with a two-tier partnership system. Nor is it the only firm that embraces a star-oriented, command-and-control culture. Many law firms and organizations in multiple industries and sectors run the risk of financial implosion, because their cultures are bankrupt. The solution, as I describe in The Bounty Effect, is to change the structure of organizations from Industrial Age command-and-control to Information Age collaborative

January 20, 2014

Sometimes corporate speak or shop talk migrates from cubicles to the front page. This is exactly what happened to the terms “performance review” and “performance appraisal” last November. That’s when Microsoft eliminated its so-called “stack ranking” of team members.

Last spring, Microsoft Chairman and co-founder Bill Gates read an advanced copy of The Bounty Effect: 7 Steps to The Culture of Collaboration®. The book shows how to change organizational structures from Industrial Age command-and-control to Information Age collaborative. Regarding performance reviews, The Bounty Effect demonstrates why ranking team members falls short and how a Collaborative Reward System creates greater value than an internally-competitive system. Ranking is essentially grading on a curve, because the organization often pre-determines which percentage of its workforce must fall into categories such as below target, target, above target and significantly above target. And grading on a curve fosters internal competition rather than collaboration. How encouraged are team members to share information and ideas if they must compete with colleagues for rankings? Not very. More likely, people will try to fake collaboration.

Headlines regarding Microsoft’s shift include “Stack Ranking Falls Outs of Favor” in Computerworld and “Microsoft Kills Its Hated Stack Rankings” in BloombergBusinessWeek. Within several days of Microsoft’s elimination of stack ranking, I was on a flight from Taipei to San Francisco reading The Wall Street Journal Asia edition. And I was fascinated to see a condemnation of Microsoft’s shift and a defense of ranking team members from Jack Welch, who once was CEO of a company known for using what Welch calls “differentiation.” That company is General Electric.

Here’s how Welch describes differentiation: “It’s about building great teams and great companies through consistency, transparency and candor. It’s about aligning performance with the organization’s mission and values. It’s about making sure that all employees know where they stand. Differentiation is nuanced, humane and occasionally complex, and it has been used successfully by companies for decades.”

In The Culture of Collaboration® book, I describe “differentiation and affirmation.” The process is more commonly called “rank and yank,” a term that Welch considers “media-invented” and “politicized.” One company that adopted the approach and created a star culture was Enron, which went bankrupt for many reasons. Star culture is a hallmark of the Industrial Age command-and-control organization. Such organizations pit people against one another and hidden agendas multiply. In contrast, a collaborative organization encourages team members to work in concert towards common goals.

Welch seems to endorse star culture in describing “feedback and coaching” as one component that makes “differentiation” work. “Your stars know they are loved and rarely leave. Those in the middle 70% know that they are appreciated, and they receive clear guidance about how to improve their performance. And the bottom 10% is never surprised when the conversation sometimes turns, after a year of candid appraisals, to moving on,” according to Welch.

Further, Welch endorses the “bell-curve” grading aspect of “differentiation.” “We grade children in school, often as young as 9 or 10, and no one calls that cruel. But somehow adults can’t take it? Explain that one to me.” Well, here it goes, Jack. Curve grading is no more helpful to children in school than it is to organizations. Our educational systems, particularly in the United States, too often foster unnecessary competition rather than collaboration. It’s no wonder why corporations have difficulty migrating from command-and-control to collaboration. Part of the reason is that team members competed for grades in school, competed for graduate school admissions while in college, and then competed for limited grant money and fellowships while in graduate school. In particular, law schools often grade first-year students on a curve in part to limit merit scholarship awards. Eliminating curve grading in which a fixed percentage must fail is a major step towards reducing internal competition and curbing the “star culture” that complicates collaboration.

Ranking team members is part of the broader recognition and reward process. This process typically features performance reviews, which distract organizations and waste an incredible amount of time. The Bounty Effectdescribes how to replace performance reviews with a far more collaborative approach. Whether we call ranking team members “differentiation” or “rank and yank,” this Industrial Age command-and-control approach has no place in an Information Age collaborative organization.

One of the latest organizations to begin adopting a collaborative structure because of The Bounty Effect is the World Bank. The World Bank has announced that it’s moving away from a command-and-control organizational structure that is compromising value. The World Bank will instead adopt a collaborative structure for greater speed and efficiency. The new structure will enable internal collaboration across functions, groups and regions. Plus the new structure will enhance external collaboration particularly with the private sector.

World Bank President Jim Yong Kim announced the shift after a survey of ten thousand team members revealed a “culture of fear” and a “terrible environment for collaboration,” according to an October 6, 2013 story by Annie Lowrey in the New York Times. Further, Kim told the New York Times he feared the World Bank’s culture and structure might short-circuit its new goals of eradicating extreme poverty by 2030 and ensuring “inclusive growth.”

The Bounty Effect for the World Bank is that the organization, which is financed by 188 member countries, faces increasing competition in supporting developing economies from many groups. One of these is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Incidentally, Bill Gates also chairs the Microsoft board of directors. In July, Microsoft announced it would change its organizational structure to reduce internal competition, curb silos and enhance collaboration. Bill read an advance copy of The Bounty Effect: 7 Steps to The Culture of Collaboration®. The book shows how to change the structure and culture of organizations from Industrial Age command-and-control to Information Age collaborative.

Microsoft, the World Bank and many organizations suffer from similar shortcomings. While many have embraced collaboration as a concept and have even developed pockets of collaborative activity, the broader organization remains mired in command-and-control.

Remnants of Industrial Age command-and-control compromise value creation. These remnants include 19th Century vertical organization charts, the need to go through channels, traditional meetings, and recognition and reward systems that reinforce internal competition among many others. The Bounty Effect: 7 Steps to The Culture of Collaboration® identifies these remnants and details how to replace them with infinitely more valuable collaborative building blocks.

As the World Bank, Microsoft and growing numbers of organizations recognize The Bounty Effect’s impact on them, they can use the opportunity to implement the 7 Steps to The Culture of Collaboration® and ultimately create far greater value.

August 01, 2013

The world is drowning in data. The term “Big Data” appears in most technology trend articles in 2013 and reverberates at seemingly every conference regardless of industry. This reminds me of a quote attributed to Mark Twain that I used with my senior picture in the high school yearbook: “Collecting data is much like collecting garbage. You must know in advance what you are going to do with the stuff before you collect it.”

Now companies and government agencies have an idea what they’re going to do with the data they collect. And a leading use of data is measurement. Measurement mania has spread throughout every function of seemingly every organization from government agencies and universities to public school systems and corporations. Organizations can now measure traits among applicants and team members ranging from emotional intelligence to flexibility. Plus companies can calculate transactional cost-per-hire.

The relentless drive to measure people can reduce value creation and compromise collaboration. Measurement mania breeds fear and internal competition among team members and encourages leaders to focus on short-term results which create less sustainable value than achieving longer-term objectives. In a numbers-obsessed organization, leaders are more likely to cut corners by booking phantom sales or sacrificing safety in manufacturing plants. With hidden agendas running rampant, collaboration towards common goals becomes impossible.

Media reports suggest that Zynga, the company that develops online games including FarmVille, has thrived on numbers. “Relentlessly aggregating performance data, from the upper ranks to the cafeteria staff,” is the way Evelyn M. Rusli of the New York Times describes the company in a November 27, 2011 story. According to a November 28, 2011 blog post by Ryan Fleming of Digital Trends, executives nurture “fierce competition both between the groups and within each department.”

Apparent measurement mania is one of many structural and cultural issues that have plagued Zynga. A September 8, 2010 story in SF Weekly by Peter Jamison indicates that the company’s values are sub-optimal and that rather than focusing on innovation, Zynga has instead pushed team members to appropriate ideas from competitors. If these assessments are accurate, it appears that Zynga would benefit from changing the structure and culture of its organization. Principles is one step that I explain in my new book, The Bounty Effect: 7 Steps to The Culture of Collaboration.

In perhaps the most sober indication of problems with Zynga’s focus, the company reported second quarter results last Thursday that contained few bragging rights. While the results exceeded analyst expectations, the number of daily active users declined 45 percent in the quarter from the same period last year. In the three months ending June 30, Zynga’s sales fell 31 percent to $231 million. According to the Wall Street Journal, Zynga CEO Don Mattrick indicated that “getting a business back on track isn’t quick, and isn’t easy.” Mattrick recently replaced founder Mark Pincus as CEO.

While Zynga clearly faces challenges on many fronts, the company’s structure and culture are likely factors in Zynga’s woes. The company is by no means alone in the issues it faces and the possible structure and culture elements. Organizations of all kinds face exigent circumstances ranging from new competitors and disruptive market forces to natural disasters and terrorist attacks. These storms that blow through businesses provide opportunities to change.

In The Bounty Effect, I discuss how to replace command-and-control remnants including measurement mania and how to adopt collaborative principles, practices and processes among other steps. Creating value through collaboration happens only when organizations change their structures and cultures from Industrial Age command-and-control to Information Age collaborative.

I’m delighted that both reviewers understood the book’s premise that businesses must abandon obsolete organizational structures designed for the Industrial Age and replace them with infinitely more valuable collaborative structures suitable for the Information Age. Leigh Mihlrad of the National Institutes of Health reviewedThe Bounty Effect for Library Journal. “Rosen declares that while the control method might have worked in the Industrial Age, it does not work in today’s Information Age,” according to the review. Mihlrad concludes with the Library Journal's verdict: “For those in positions to bring about organizational change, this book provides many useful examples.”

The Publishers Weeklyreview highlights my point that The Bounty Effect is by no means limited to corporations. “Rosen argues that collaboration moves well beyond organizational boundaries, as it applies to neighborhoods, communities, and government,” according to Publishers Weekly. “Collaboration creates greater value, enhances achievement, and produces sustainable business models; the question then becomes how quickly can an organization free itself from the Industrial Age and operate to its maximum capacity in the Information Age.” The sooner an organization starts the seven steps, the faster it can migrate from command-and-control and maximize value through collaboration

June 04, 2013

My new book entitled The Bounty Effect: 7 Steps to The Culture of Collaboration® is now available. It’s the second book in a series which includes The Culture of Collaboration®: Maximizing Time, Talent and Tools to Create Value in the Global Economy. The Bounty Effect shows how to change the structure of organizations for collaboration.

Why do organizations need to change their structures? The Industrial Age was command and control. The Information Age is collaboration. Yet Industrial Age structures render collaboration dead on arrival in the Information Age. Remnants of these structures—including organization charts, performance reviews, meetings and mission statements—inhibit organizations from using new collaborative methods and tools that spark innovation. Now we’re at the point where many organizations—from corporations and small businesses to universities and government agencies—have a desire to collaborate. Some have taken action to instill collaborative culture. But what’s holding back collaboration is obsolete organizational structures, which we must change.

The Bounty Effect gets its name from the mutiny that occurred on the H.M.S Bounty in 1789. Before the mutiny, Captain William Bligh used a well-worn management technique: command-and-control. The mutiny forced the structure and culture to change as Bligh became a collaborative leader and his loyalists participated in decisions as they struggled for survival aboard a small boat. The mutiny was an exigent circumstance, one that compels immediate action.

The Bounty Effect happens when exigent circumstances compel businesses, governments and organizations to change their structures from command and control to collaborative. Triggers include disruptive market forces, new competitors, regional slowdowns, natural disasters, terrorist attacks and global downturns.

The book is about how to seize the opportunity that The Bounty Effect provides and change the organizational structure in seven steps. My objective in writing the book is to provide a framework for structural change necessary to transform organizations into collaborative enterprises. And The Bounty Effect demonstrates how collaborative enterprises create far more value than command-and-control organizations. Using the framework, people and organizations can determine how to redesign and adopt a collaborative structure that fits. I welcome your input.